British Children to be Sodomized at School at Taxpayers Expense - Why?

Publication date: 2003-03-19

On 10 March 2003 the British Parliament voted on a motion to restore Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 (c.9), a law which makes the promotion of homosexuality by local government illegal. This motion was defeated by 356 votes against 127.

"Prohibition on promoting homosexuality by teaching or by publishing material.
A local authority shall not -

intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality;

promote the teaching in any maintained [at the public expense] school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship."

And it is this section that 75% of the Members of Parliament who took part in that vote rejected.

And the meaning of it is that 75% members of the British Parliament believe that the British local authorities (city and town councils) should be allowed to promote homosexuality and specifically to do so in schools among school children. And that this promotion of homosexuality among school children should be financed from rates and taxes collected from the British public.

Section 28 was originally introduced by the Conservatives following some scandals that school teachers were promoting homosexuality among school children. At the time it was a measure that had a broad public support. But was this measure necessary?

Any local or central government activity must be strictly limited to the purpose for which a particular government department is set up. Any use of government resources outside of this strictly limited scope of their activities is an abuse of government powers and misuse of public funds. So unless promotion of homosexuality among school children is an explicitly defined part of the school curriculum, it is illegal. No special legislation is required to stipulate that, because any activity outside of those which are part of the duties of the Education Authorities is abuse of their powers and misuse of funds and human resources.

But politicians do not see the function of government as a set of duties. They see government powers as a set of privileges and immunities. They feel free to indulge in any activities that might appeal to them. They crave power as a source of enjoyment and as immunity from any responsibility for the results of their actions.

During the debates of Section 28, the issue that any activity by any government department outside of its defined duties is ultra vires has not been raised. What they were discussing was not the issue of whether promotion of homosexuality among school children is part of the duties of the education authorities, but whether they themselves personally favour homosexuality or not. One MP said that homosexuality was wrong, and was immediately labeled by the rest of the mob as a bigot. The majority were extolling homosexuality as "freedom" and "alternative life style".

But what had their personal views on homosexuality to do with definition of the functions of the education authorities?

Had anybody raised the issue of the limitation of powers of government, he would have met with the indignant: "Are you suggesting that government has any definable duties! We are here to enjoy ourselves, not perform any boring duties. Don't spoil our fun!"

If the Right Honourable Members of Parliament sincerely believed that children should be encouraged to indulge in sex perversions, then they should have made promotion of homosexuality an official part of the school curriculum. At least then the parents would have known what their children are taught at school. Without this, promotion of homosexuality among children by local authorities remains outside of the scope of their powers, and for that reason alone is illegal.

It was not necessary to introduce Section 28 in the first place. Instead those local authorities who allowed their staff to indulge in such activities should have been prosecuted for abuses of their powers. Any parent or even any taxpayer can bring a legal action against a local authority indulging in promotion of homosexuality on the grounds of abuses of government powers.

But how many members of the British public are aware of their legal rights and of the limitations of the powers of government? Indeed, how many of the government officials themselves are?
Is this not a failure of the British education system?
Is this not what the children should be taught instead of being groomed1 by sex perverts to indulge their own vices?

So why will the British children continue to be sodomized at schools at the taxpayers expense?
Because their parents have not been taught at school the purpose of government and how to deal with abuses of government powers.

1)Grooming is a jargon term used by paedophiles (that is, people who sexually abuse children), which, in recent times, has gained common use due to increase in child abuse. Grooming means preparing a child of less than 16 years old for sexual abuse once he reaches the age of 16. This is because the legal age of consent for homosexual relationship in Britain has been reduced to 16, as a result of demands by pro-homosexual pressure groups.

Grooming consists of developing an intimate relationship with a child, which can begin as innocent friendship and then gradually is guided towards sexual intimacy. And once the child reaches the age of 16 he can be sodomized wuthout breaking the law. Grooming is often indulged in by people who work with children, like teachers, youth organizers, social workers, etc.

Although Section 28 is redundant for the reasons described in this article, its repeal will be seen by paedophiles working with children as a licence for grooming. And because many people do not know what Section 28 is about, most parents will not be aware of this implication, and the dangers it presents to their children.